Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Pandering to the Young - First Time Voters' Question Time

I suppose there is a case for finding out the specific views of first time voters, although I'm not sure it's a strong one. Politicians and the media spend rather a lot of time pandering to young people, and certainly the most frustrating part of the First Time Voters' Question Time that BBC 3 broadcast this evening was the debate about why young people weren't fully engaged in politics. Young people are disengaged from traditional politics for a variety of reasons, not least their own unwillingness to spend time considering often complex issues, and their preference for trivial, personality led media. But that doesn't mark them out especially from the rest of the population. We live in a democracy, and if you don't like the people running it you have the absolute right, perhaps even duty, to put your head above the parapet and get involved. And the politicians who have done that, who have stood before an electorate, who have tried to pursue public service and been elected in the process, whatever their manifold flaws, need to be a lot less defensive about what they are doing and start being a bit more aggressive.

Of the panellists, I never thought I'd see the day where I thought David Lammy was moderately impressive, but he was both the most genuine and the most passionate of the political guests, even if he still suffers from a peculiar difficulty of articulation. He scores highly when he takes time to think about what he is saying, and departs from the government line to give a more personal view. The Tories' Jeremy Hunt was a bit of a nonentity, failing to make any real impression, and making the cardinal error in his first answer of descending quickly to a bit of tedious party politicking, which should go down badly with any audience. As for Julia Goldsworthy, her desperate efforts to come across as the 'anti-politician', the breath of Liberal fresh air who's down wiv it amongst the yoof, well she was frankly painful to watch. Her humourless stridency and self-righteousness were enough to turn anyone away from the Lib Dems. Amongst the non-politicians, Apprentice winner Tim Campbell was surprisingly good, Jamelia was a bit pointless, and Rory Bremner was simply embarrassing. His extraordinary belief that vast numbers of young people in this country are politicised over such issues as climate change and poverty in Africa beg the question as to which planet he's actually visiting from. Most young people are not remotely politicised, and their interests range to their social lives and what sort of jobs they might get. Pretty well the not unreasonable interests of most people in Britain. Dermot O'Leary was an engaging host, even if he did get a little too involved in a dialogue with a lamentably uninteresting member of the audience who seemed to want to blame anyone but herself for her lack of knowledge about politics.

On the day when a genuine political giant - Michael Foot - has died, this programme sadly showed us how limited our current politicians really are. The Question Time format is a great one, but only if the politicians can confidently articulate a clear vision of what they stand for, and have the integrity not to pander to the audience but to persuade them and even argue with them. David Lammy nearly did this at points, to his credit, but even he is too prone to a bit of craven pandering. Audiences are not some form of holy writ and politics is about proper debate, not weak posturing. Let's hope the leaders' debates show us a bit of quality - at this rate I'll be rooting for Gordon Brown, so long as he gives us a bit of passion and puts his celebrity lapse behind him!

No way! I've just started a Question Time blog myself! Totally agree with you on Jamelia (that was all a bit cringeworthy)but not so sure on Lammy... didn't think he quite his voice that night. Anyhoo, I'll look out for further QT posts here and if you want to check out mine, it's at http://spreadhead.wordpress.com/

Popular posts from this blog

The press are certainly able to make a lot of noise. Most of the country may not be that bothered about press regulation, but it has definitely become the NUMBER ONE ISSUE for the denizens of the media class. The Budget is almost looking like light relief tomorrow.

There are a few voices of sanity if you look hard enough. Amol Rajan in the Evening Standard yesterday commented on the dangers of victim justice, while Will Sturgeon on today's Media Blog provides a reminder of exactly why press regulation is on the agenda, and it's not to do with politicians trying to extend their power, funnily enough.

But there is also still plenty of group press hysterics to keep us all entertained, nowhere more obviously than in Quentin Letts' parliamentary 'sketch' in today's Mail. Letts is so focused on pouring vitriol over the heads of any MP who dared suggest that press regulation is needed that he quite forgot to be funny. Or maybe that's become his house style n…

There seems to be a popular liberal narrative emerging about the present state of British politics which is largely summed up by (1) the Tories have got us into a mess over the past couple of years and (2) they, especially Theresa May, should apologise for getting Britain into this mess.

Utter bilge.

There may be a number of things Mrs. May needs to apologise for - a poor campaign, an overly insular leadership style, the loss of a number of Conservative seats - but all these apologies need to be directed purely at the Tory party that she leads and its candidates. Further, an acknowledgement that she has learned lessons from the election and will seek to adapt her premiership to suit those would be helpful and politically adept. But an apology to the country? What a fruitless, pointless, unnecessary exercise that would be.

I presume the apology in question that liberal commentators have in mind would be along the lines of saying sorry for calling an election. Really? In a democra…

Clause One of the Labour Party's constitution commits it to maintaining a strong parliamentary party:

“[The party’s] purpose is to organise and maintain in Parliament and in the country a political Labour Party.”

Given that Jeremy Corbyn is opposed by 95% of his own MPs (only 15 MPs voted for him in the 2015 ballot; he wasn't required, as the incumbent leader, to check out that support again in 2016), the first obvious division within Labour would appear to be that between those who want to maintain a strong parliamentary party (the MPs who opoosed Corbyn) and those who want to make it more a grassroots-run organisation (principally Corbyn supporting groups like Momentum and the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy). This New Statesman editorial summarises and comments on the division.

The policy differences, of course, are severe. The leaking of Labour's election manifesto suggested serious opposition within the party to it. It has become a fundamentally binary struggl…